Chemically scrubbing CO2 from the air too expensive

Dec 12, 2011

Technology exists today for removing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and is much cheaper than removal from the atmosphere. Credit: Erkki Makkonen / iStock

(PhysOrg.com) -- While it is possible to chemically scrub carbon dioxide from Earth's atmosphere in order to lessen the severity of global warming, the process is prohibitively expensive for now. Best to focus on controls for coal-burning power plants, say researchers.

Someday the world may be in a position to lower the concentration of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by chemically removing it from the air.

But not soon; the process is simply too expensive, say scientists from Stanford and MIT.

For now, it is much more economically efficient to capture the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere from the smokestacks of large centralized sources such as power plants, cement plants, fertilizer plants and refineries.

After a detailed comparison, the research team concluded that the cost of removal from air is likely to be on the order of $1,000 per ton of carbon dioxide, compared with $50 to $100 per ton for current power-plant scrubbers.

Indeed, the researchers say, the cost of removing carbon dioxide directly from the air would be so large that paying for it would require the equivalent of a $10-per-gallon tax on gasoline. The cost estimates are similar to those presented earlier this year in an American Physical Society study, although the APS study emphasized that future costs might come down with new technology.

"Like the PNAS article, the APS report concludes that direct air capture must be powered by low-carbon energy," said Robert Socolow, a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Princeton University who is a co-author, with Wilcox, of the APS study.

"Direct air capture sounds great in theory," Wilcox said. "In reality, though, a lot of energy is required, and using fossil-based energy sources to capture and regenerate the carbon dioxide could readily result in more carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere than is captured.

"For direct air capture to be feasible, carbon-free energy, such as solar or wind, is required. But that carbon-free energy would be used more cost effectively to replace CO2-emitting power plants."

Technology exists today for removing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and is much cheaper than removal from the atmosphere. "The concentration of CO2 in outside air is 300 times less than in the coal-fired flue gases emitted from a power plant. The lower atmospheric concentration makes removal from air much more expensive than removing CO2 directly from the flue gases at the source," Wilcox said.

Air capture systems are attractive because they are theoretically possible. "If you look at the ideal equations," said Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer at the MIT Energy Initiative who worked with Wilcox on the research, "it's possible to come up with air-scrubbing systems that appear to be feasible. But if you look at empirical data  how engineers look at this, with real-world efficiencies  you don't find many reasons to be hopeful."

Wilcox is the author of Carbon Capture, the first textbook on the topic, to be published by Springer in March. "It will lead students to the research frontier," Socolow said. "Once there, they may well surprise the rest of us with new concepts and lower costs."

Related Stories

Technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are unlikely to offer an economically feasible way to slow human-driven climate change for several decades, according to a report issued by the American Physical ...

Since most of the worlds governments have not yet enacted regulations to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, some experts have advocated the development of technologies to remove carbon dioxide directly ...

Relatives of ingredients in hair-conditioning shampoos and fabric softeners show promise as a long-sought material to fight global warming by "scrubbing" carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the flue gases from coal-burning ...

Researchers in Wyoming report development of a low-cost carbon filter that can remove 90 percent of carbon dioxide gas from the smokestacks of electric power plants that burn coal and other fossil fuels. Their study is scheduled ...

Scientists and engineers in Georgia and Pennsylvania are reporting development of a new, low-cost material for capturing carbon dioxide from the smokestacks of coal-fired electric power plants and other industrial ...

Yosemite National Park is bracing for its driest year on record, with visitor bureaus downplaying the allure of the park's most famous waterfall and instead touting the park as a destination for hiking, bicycling and photography.

A new stream-based monitoring system recently discovered high levels of methane in a Pennsylvania stream near the site of a reported Marcellus shale gas well leak, according to researchers at Penn State and the U.S. Geological ...

A team led by Washington State University researchers has found that methane emissions from local natural gas distribution systems in cities and towns throughout the U.S. have decreased in the past 20 years ...

In the first-of-its-kind study of the environmental effects of hydropeaking, that is releasing water at hydropower dams to meet peak daily electricity demand, two University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers ...

The cold fusion would enable to produce the hydrocarbons just from carbon dioxide and water contained in air. But the separation of CO2 from air with using of fossil fuel energy just increases the consumption of fossil carbon, which leads nowhere.

For direct air capture to be feasible, carbon-free energy, such as solar or wind, is required. But that carbon-free energy would be used more cost effectively to replace CO2-emitting power plants

Correct.

But ideally, you'd make enough wind and solar power systems to meet all of our daily needs, and then make enough EXTRA wind and solar power systems to supply the power needed to remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

Although actually, in the short term, the most efficient thing anyone can do to stop CO2 is to get India, Pakistan, and the remnant of the middle East and Africa to quit growing their populations at 15 to 20%.

At this rate, Pakistan will double it's population in 38 years, and India will double it's population in 50 years. These two nations alone will contribute 300 million people to the global population increase over the next 10 years, and 2 billion people over the next 50 years, at this rate.

Obviously it's too expensive now, or we'd be doing it already. The question is and always has been, along with all other climate mitigation strategies including finding alternative power sources, how do we make it cheap enough?

Every thing you just said is not going to happen. It is no more than naive fantasy. You're not going to replace oil/coal with enough windmills and solar panels to make a ratz a$$ differnce,... you're not going to convince nations to impose limits on reproduction (social engineering).. you're not going to convince free nations to subject their own economies to UN regulations (global social engineering),.. you're not going to convince free nations to adopt socialism.

AGW has been a known issue for decades and yet there are NO alternatives on the appropriate scale in place and ready for the market. There are no government controls wrt energy use.

The global economy has to work it's way off oil/coal gradually and naturally. Alternatives have to compete and be adopted, not because tree-huggers are crying, but because it is in the best interest of an economy to use that alternative. Technology has to catch up to the market or vise versa.

Obviously it's too expensive now, or we'd be doing it already. The question is and always has been, along with all other climate mitigation strategies including finding alternative power sources, how do we make it cheap enough?

Exactly. I get so tiered of hearing the same left-wing idealistic blather over and over. Alternatives must compete with oil/coal,... because no one is going to just stop using oil/coal because AlGore said so,.. or because of some cataclysmic AGW speculation that no one really believes or knows for sure.

The hard reality is we are stuck on oil/coal until technology can catch up,.. i.e. ultra-safe nuclear.

The environmentalist are unreasonable that they complain about oil/coal AND nuclear. Pick one.

Absolute none-sense. The UN, while funded by the USA, is an independent organization. The USA does not control this organization,.. if it did other nations would never agree to become members. Also there has been many instances where they went counter to USA best interests.

But that would be an oversimplification. If the local conditions are favorable, the equation can easily tip towards other alternatives, such as tidal, geothermal, wind, or solar. I believe the US EIA figures must be averaged.

The following IEA report talks about the complexities that make it difficult to declare a 'best' source:

Hint: Skip to the conclusion paragraphs if you don't have time to gloss the whole thing.

The following article from Nature is somewhat relevant to the above discussion, but only a little. Still, kinda interesting. Looks like sugar, corn and wheat aren't a horrible alternative as far as automobile fuel (Unless you live in a food-poor country like Somalia).

The underlying premise to human engineered carbon capture techniques have one basic flaw: trying to capture CO2 produced at 100% efficiency with methods that are far less efficient. The end result is that we are accelerating the production of CO2 globally, while reducing CO2 locally. For example, in the referred document, in the case of chemical scrubbing with NaOH, the resulting Na2CO3 produced in the scrubbing of CO2 is "regenerated" with locally slaked CaO. However, to produce CaO, you liberate CO2 from CaCO3 in a kiln fired with fossil fuels. Same is true in the production of the NaOH from Na2CO3. Also, no evaluation includes CO2 emitted from transportation and support functions. Once you introduce this CO2 production, you will find that these "scientists" are not the geniuses they purport to be. We used to make fun of ancients who thought man is at the center of the universe and those who thought they could control the weather. Not the politicians, they can do anything!

I love stories like this. Everyone claims that solar and wind can meet all our generation needs at all times, and at the same cost. Laughable but fun to read. Then there is always that odd comment, you know the one from the guy who has never taken a thermodynamics class, which implies cold fusion is the future. We can get all the energy we would ever need out of a nickel! All with cold fusion! LOL. Lets also take the time to gripe about the politicians, after all, it is a conspiracy that they haven't chosen our preferred power generation technology.

The fact is that it would take a lot of money for wind and solar to meet our power generation needs. Lets not forget to mention the massive land use that comes into play with wind power.

At this rate, Pakistan will double it's population in 38 years, and India will double it's population in 50 years. These two nations alone will contribute 300 million people to the global population increase over the next 10 years, and 2 billion people over the next 50 years, at this rate.

You can't engineer population growth. It is a self regulating natural phenomenon that depends on resources, and many other factors including human rights. Man cannot hold back the oceans either.

It is pointless for OSHA to audit the battlefield because of the nature of war,... likewise it is pointless for some global climate committee to control and regulate energy use.

If the adaptation of new energy technologies in the global market does not occur "in time", then we must go down with the ship. That is just cold reality. Some 55 million people are believed to have died relatively recently during WWII,... do you honestly think "the planet" has any better chance?

Well, I mean gee, a big part of intelligence about recognizing patterns and understanding future consequences?

When Oil and Coal run out, everyone is going to starve anyway because there won't be enough energy to raise and transport food.

Oh well, I think everyone will be convinced after another decade of plus 16 melting days increase.

In the meanwhile, India and Pakistan will make another 300 million babies that someone will have to figure out how to feed WITHOUT cutting down more forests in SA, and of course without doing any fishing, because fisheries is going to certainly be toast by then.

We might have a world ban on commercial fishing by 2020 just to avoid a complete extinction event for many fish and crab species.

I don't think PEOPLE fricken comprehend; it hasn't entered into people's minds how BAD even the low ball estimates of global mean sea level rise would be for the U.S., Europe, and China, nor many other nations.

If Greenland continues melting LINEARLY, there will be 1 foot of Sea level rise by 2100. Sea level is currently rising 3.1mm/year as of 2011.

But every bit of science and math you can find says the melt will be EXPONENTIAL, not linear.

Look at the PIOMAS sea ice volume data. The last 10 years shows you something.

Greenland ice sheets are thicker and more cubical, so the melt rate "lags" behind the atmosphere just because of a much lower surface to volume ratio. Addtionally, sea ice has a top surface and bottom surface touching warmer air and water.

The point being, the Sea Ice volume was LINEAR then dropped off suddenly exponentially over a 10 years period, losing half the historical volume in 10 years...

Once you take a decent bite out of the Greenland glaciers around the edge, the whole thing is going to go with the exponential positive albedo feedback.

Greenland added 12 annual melting days from 2001 to 2011.

If it adds another 10 to 12 annual melting days from 2011 to 2021, the annual net melting rate will easily quadruple, maybe even more.

===

What if it rises 5 or 7 feet by the end of the century?

===

Many place in Irene's path only saw a 5 to 7 foot water level rise. Imagine if that became the permanent sea level. Most of the East Coast will have to be abandoned//moved inland several miles or more. Gulf Coast will be submerged.

Chesapeake bay.

Galveston

N and S. Carolina

NOLA

Corpus

Houston

Much of Florida

Georgia

Mobile Bay

Miami

Key West (total abandonment required)

Where the hell are you going to move all these people and the infrastructure?

Absolute none-sense. The UN, while funded by the USA, is an independent organization. The USA does not control this organization,.. if it did other nations would never agree to become members. Also there has been many instances where they went counter to USA best interests.

Yeah I exaggerated. The most subscribed to meme in the US with regards to the UN, even quite popular among liberals, is that the US does not benefit from the UN.

My point was that the US more frequently benefits from the UN than it doesn't. There are very, very many votes where it is literally the US and Israel versus every other member. Not 4 vs the world. Not 3 vs the world. 2. Many many votes go that way.

I could make a larger point about this going against the "liberal media bias" being largely a myth, but 1000 character limit 1:30 am, etc.

When Oil and Coal run out, everyone is going to starve anyway because there won't be enough energy to raise and transport food.

You think one, day all of a sudden like, we're going to here that straw-slurping sound coming from oil wells around the world?

In fact we are unlikely ever to "run out" of oil. Instead what will happen is this, ...as oil becomes more scarce and more expensive to extract, alternatives will enter the market because then and only then, they will be able to compete.

This process is very gradual occuring over the course of half a century. It won't be something where the proverbial "we" have to site down and "figure out what to do",... the solutions will come as a matter technological evolution expected in anycase. When there is money to be made innovations will occur. in

In the meanwhile, India and Pakistan will make another 300 million babies that someone will have to figure out how to feed WITHOUT cutting down more forests in SA, and of course without doing any fishing, because fisheries is going to certainly be toast by then.

We might have a world ban on commercial fishing by 2020 just to avoid a complete extinction event for many fish and crab species.

Again, if the resources are not there population growth will not occur as you suggest. It is a self regulating phenomenon.

Again, if the resources are not there population growth will not occur as you suggest. It is a self regulating phenomenon.

Unfortunately, poor populations have lots of babies. Eventually, there is a limit where famine and disease significantly impacts population growth if there is no access to other resources (war), but there is room for a lot more population growth before the collapse.

The world's population problem is exacerbated by places like China and India where female pregnancies are selectively aborted. Again, such practices tend toward war to obtain missing resources.

You can't engineer population growth. It is a self regulating natural phenomenon that depends on resources, and many other factors including human rights. Man cannot hold back the oceans either.

Uh nou did you trip and stub your HEAD maybe? What would you call the massive international, Rockefeller foundation-funded family planning efforts of the last century, including the 1 BILLION ABORTIONS which have taken place during this time huh?http://www.johnst...dex.html

-Western civilization has been configured expressly to reduce population growth by 1) providing people with meaningful alternatives to producing large families, 2) mitigating religions mandate to force overgrowth and 3) making people responsible for living within their means.

You mean unfortunately religionist populations have lots of babies and this is what makes them poor, dont you? And this is what makes them dangerous.

Eventually, there is a limit where famine and disease significantly impacts population growth if there is no access to other resources (war), but there is room for a lot more population growth before the collapse.

-And this is why war, famine, and disease is rife in cultures throughout the world which still remain in the grips of religion, correct?

You know the formula: god WILL provide for as many children as the faithful can produce. Of course god invariably gives what the faithful need to the infidel and the heathen; and if the faithful want it they have to TAKE it, which they are encouraged to do. As the hebrews took the promised land, and muhammud took mecca. Correct?

This is how religions aim to fill up the world. By ridding it of all the unworthy. Correct?

You may be right. There may well be room on earth for more people. But NOT until religions are ended, and the people learn to live within their means and plan for their futures. That is, compelling the people themselves, and not god, to be responsible for their own lives.

population problem is exacerbated by places like China and India where female pregnancies are selectively aborted.

Please explain to me how this makes sense to you. How does reducing the number of baby-makers, ie females, make overpopulation WORSE? This action reduces growth both directly AND indirectly.

Again, such practices tend toward war to obtain missing resources.

These practices REDUCE the need for resources. Obviously you havent really thought this through? You are just conflating 2 bad things because they are both bad and so must be related yes?

Again, if the resources are not there population growth will not occur as you suggest. It is a self regulating phenomenon.

Again, I have disproved this misconception. Pops will naturally grow a gen beyond what resources can support. A species will typically produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity. And most people simply do not consider the future when they get the chance to mate.

Otto,I really don't care to answer your constant complaints about religion. Overpopulation is a world problem. Even people who are not religious have too many babies.

Please explain to me how this makes sense to you. How does reducing the number of baby-makers, ie females, make overpopulation WORSE?

Of course, I never said that. I said that by reducing the number of females available, reducing that resource, is a further pressure on overpopulated areas to engage in war to replace those needed resources. Yes, females are a resource that will be sought by the large numbers of men who cannot find a mate because so many females have been aborted in favor of male births.

Correction. Most males desire females. Sorry that that offended you. It remains a fact that there is already growing discontent in India over imbalance in the sexes and that discontent will grow as the imbalance grows.

You may be right. There may well be room on earth for more people. But NOT until religions are ended, and the people learn to live within their means and plan for their futures. That is, compelling the people themselves, and not god, to be responsible for their own lives.

Having "too many" babies has zero to do with religion. Statistics show over and over again, that "the lower class" are the ones who have the multiple kids. Many times because they're are guaranteed gov entitlements.

You can't engineer population growth. It is a self regulating natural phenomenon that depends on resources, and many other factors including human rights. Man cannot hold back the oceans either.

What would you call the massive international, Rockefeller foundation-funded family planning efforts of the last century, including the 1 BILLION ABORTIONS which have taken place during this time huh?

Western civilization has been configured expressly to reduce population growth by 1) providing people with meaningful alternatives to producing large families.,..

What else would you call this but demographic engineering?

That is not gov controlled population control, since people are still making free choice. Abortion is not a modern western invention. It has gone on since ancient times. In fact they use to expose babies to the elements, to kill them.

The point above was that gov engineered population control can't be a 'solution' to AGW, in free societies.

I really don't care... Even people who are not religious have too many babies.

You bet. But at least it may be possible to educate them on the importance of living within their means. Religions routinely resist this because their reproductive mores are aggressive in nature. Like these guys for instance:http://en.wikiped...ko_Haram

-Not much difference between what they teach and what hasidic or amish people are taught, in regard to 'god will provide'.

Yes, females are a resource that will be sought by the large numbers of men who cannot find a mate

-because, after all, a mans life is not complete without a mate...?? AGAIN, western culture gives people of both sexes many meaningful alternatives to traditional lifestyles. And many of these are far more natural than the 'one mate for life' religionist mantra, which is the very best way of growing large families and congregations. Which is why they enforce it so strictly.

That is not gov controlled population control, since people are still making free choice.

DEPENDS on what you mean by 'government' doesnt it? And I am not talking conspiracy here (well sure I am.) It has been sort of a team effort hasnt it?

Case in point: religionist cultures throughout eurasia which would have PREVENTED family planning, are destroyed by war and communist martial law. Western people are gradually reeducated on alternatives to religionism. Advocate groups in western cultures (where did they come from?) are able to sway liberal lawmakers into legalizing what only a few gens before were serious felonies and horrible crimes.

All these changes were absolutely essential before the rockefeller foundation and others could spread family planning worldwide. Which resulted in zero growth in those populations affected, and a world with perhaps 1/4th fewer people in it.

Actually Noumenon is wrong...If you want to lower birthrates you educate women. Period.

Indeed. But first you must destroy the thing which is keeping them from being educated. And you have to give them something else to do besides making babies, which after all is a very rewarding endeavor and a difficult compulsion to resist.

Abortion is not a modern western invention. It has gone on since ancient times. In fact they use to expose babies to the elements, to kill them.

Yeah people keep bringing up infanticide, and gehenna, and midwives educating women in the village on contraception and natural methoods of abortion. But I doubt that upwards of 50% of pregnancies were aborted, as in russia, or half that number in the US.

Religionists burned midwives and baby-killers as witches. Tribes which practiced these things could not resist incursion by religions which could outgrow and overwhelm them. All that was left eventually were the most virulent, the most successful of them.

Indeed. But first you must destroy the thing which is keeping them from being educated. And you have to give them something else to do besides making babies, which after all is a very rewarding endeavor and a difficult compulsion to resist.

No doubt. My only point is screaming "BOOTSTRAPS!" at the third world is going to do NO GOOD, for anyone. Sometimes you have to do something just because it's the right thing to do, not because it is profitable. Education and healthcare are two of these things. Educating women will result in a positive feedback loop that ultimately would save the capitalist world a ton of cash. But capitalism isn't about global investment, it's about global extraction.

The wealthy don't create wealth. The workers do. The wealthy, largely, extract their wealth from the workers.

Having "too many" babies has zero to do with religion. Statistics show over and over again, that "the lower class" are the ones who have the multiple kids. Many times because they're are guaranteed gov entitlements.

Actually Noumenon is wrong. The only scientifically proven factor that influences birthrates is female education.

Everything else he may try to blame it on is correlated, BUT NOT the cause. If you want to lower birthrates you educate women. Period.

-I think after child #1, they have all the education they need wrt birthrate and responsibility.

-Are you saying that the gov failed yet again, after all they are responsible for such public education.

-There will always be a lower class and the ills that effect them, including increased birthrate. It's not that they've lacked the same basic opportunities as the middle class or upper class, it's that they are who they are. It's not that its not possible to transform them, its that THEY don't have the personal responsibility to transform themselves.

In any case, the point is, gov social engineering wrt population control is not a solution to AGW in a free society. Stalin and Mao Ze dong were good at it though.

Having "too many" babies has zero to do with religion. Statistics show over and over again, that "the lower class" are the ones who have the multiple kids. Many times because they're are guaranteed gov entitlements.

-Then WHY is the growth rate greatest in cultures dominated by religions?

Meaningless assessment since most cultures across the globe are dominated by religion. Even in the USA some 83% are religious.

It is an outdated argument to blame catholicism on certain social ills. Doesn't work any more.

Hey Nou you give up so soon? A major factor in this equation... back when postnatal infanticide was rife, natural attrition rates from predation, accident, disease, and conflict were MUCH higher. And STILL people found the need for abortion and the culling of unfit babies in order to restrict their growth.

With each new medical and technological advance which enabled pops to grow faster and live longer, the Problem became worse. The only Solution available to modern civilization, apart from the Engineered wars which had been Staged for so long, became a return to the evil practices promoted by ancient midwifery; contraception and abortion. And societies had to be altered drastically for this to happen.Cont>

The New World Order and the rise of the woman is upon us. While a mans reproductive advantage lies in Quantity, a womans prerogative is to select for Quality as she has far more time and effort invested in each individual pregnancy. The world is now FULL; the west has conquered it. It now needs no more people; instead it now needs BETTER people.

Women have been given rein to select quality over quantity, and they do this by inciting competition among males. What better way to restrict growth than to put the midwives in charge? Pandoras Box has been opened; tough times lie ahead for males.

This is after all exactly what is meant by 'the freedom to choose' isn't it? The freedom to choose which males to mate with, when and how often to bear children, which pregnancies to keep and which to discard? 'The freedom to choose' is the ability to select for Quality.

Pregnancy is dangerous for human females, and the danger only increases as they get older. Women know this intrinsically and will resist getting pregnant as they age. This and the emphasis today for women to seek higher education and careers before having children narrows this window considerably. More evidence of Planning in the configuration of society.

You're all idiots, CO2 is one small piece of a very large puzzle that is starting to reveal the picture of our demise as a species. The pieces are falling into place and unfortunately some of these piece represent a huge decrease in intelligence and foresight as well as phenomenon which limit the effective distribution and absorption of important knowledge.

Slowly but surely (and at an ever increasing rate) we are putting nail after nail into our coffins. Every new tech holds a small benefit to our luxury and yet ends up being a catastrophic blow to diversity and stability in the global ecosystem.

Just wait, all you right-wing nutcases will be punching yourselves in the face when you realize the world you are leaving your children is a toxic mess with a rapidly collapsing diversity web. Pretty soon domesticated animals will be the only wildlife on the planet.

Yes, religious populations usually have more babies. You claim this causes poverty. However, societies (e.g., in the west) that have fewer babies now didn't quit having babies and THEN become wealthy. They became wealthy and THEN had fewer kids. Likewise, they did not quit being religious and THEN become wealthy. They became wealthy and only then became irreligious.

I love how you self-proclaimed enlightened progressives think you have the world figured out scientifically, but you frankly suck at science, not understanding simple relationships of causation. If you're the enlightened future, we're all ****ed.

Have you bought any "Gulf Shrimp" lately nononoplease? That is your enlightened future. A toxic sewage dump of industries dumping their sludge into ecosystem for the benefit of the desperate greed makers.

That can't happen without stupid and poorly educated people, and the industries minions keeping people stupid poorly educated.

Liberalism is all about education. Liberalism is about empowering the masses. Liberalism is a far superior political philosophy for governance in current times. Controls need to be placed on polluters; and the UN has some jurisdiction. After all, the polluters in the USA can effect the people of South Africa as well as they can China.

Conservatism when it comes to serving people other than their small clubs is a big fat fail.

That's all great, except what you've described is not liberalism. Modern day conservatives are generally trying to conserve liberalism, properly defined. The so-called Liberals of today don't understand the meaning of the word.

Your version of "Liberalism" is most definitely not about empowering the people. It is implicit in your doctrine that people are too stupid to govern themselves, and must follow anointed bureaucrats to tell them how to eat, tie their shoes, etc.

Thank you for the comment Nonono. I disagree with you that liberalism is "not about empowering the people". Just the opposite. 180 degrees opposite. Liberalism is about education so people make good decisions as a society. Conservatism would have people fend for themselves. Conservatism is all about greed.

If you look at the track record of conservative societies vs liberal societies, conservatism tends to really suck, and in fact tends towards creating misery.

Yes, liberalism is the reason for prosperous societies. The only problem for you is that it is today's "conservatives" who are the ones who actually ascribe to liberalism, and therefore to prosperous societies. Today's "liberals" are statists who want to establish bureaucracies of "experts" to run the lives of everyone--eating, smoking, driving, working, building, etc. That is not actually liberalism. Your view doesn't empower anyone, it just makes a bunch of moronic drones who cannot think for themselves.

Were we not "a bunch of moronic drones who cannot think for themselves." 5 years back, 10 years, 15 years, hell 50 year back.What you seem to be complaining about nono is over regulation. The most liberal societies tend to be the less regulated ones. Look at the most regulated societies, Iran, Syria, etc... and down the list and tell us where they stand with regard to liberalism. It's a long list.

Liberals are the farthest from "drones" you can think of. Our whole country was founded on Liberalism. Franklin, Jefferson, Washington and many many other patriots extraordinaire up and through the USofA.